Per the Boston Globe, Eduardo Kac, a Chicago artist “persuaded a team of French genetic researchers…to combine the DNA of a rabbit with a phosphorescent jellyfish”.
The animal glows white under a black light.
His show at a SoHo gallery also has cloned trees and colored enzimes.
It sounds to me like a cover for the chemists to work under, to confuse the issues involved.
Well it’s interesting that an argument has broken out over who the bunny belongs to. The researchers were apparently working with it anyway.
http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns999916
Confuse the issues? What exactly is the problem? Inserting the gene for flrorescence has been done a LOT. It’s an easy test to see if your technique works.
Here’s the “artist’s” link
** http://www.ekac.org/ **
The confusion is to say it’s connected to art.
If they said it was for industrial uses or medical of food or entertainment (as Easter pets), PETA would be all over them. As “art”, you don’t seem as sure of yourself. It makes it seem you are unsophisticated, rather than properly concerned about ethics.
It’s not like glowing under a UV light hurts the bunny.
The bunny, actually, is probably living the good life, as bunnies go. It’s a cherished work of art, after all…
I’ve already addressed this in an MSPSIMS thread a few days ago. My opinion: It’s a hoax. The picture in the Globe and on the website clearly is – it doesn’t seem likely a that all the tissues would glow with the same color green, and with the same intensity (including “dead” tissue like hairs). There was a response someone published on the thread that seemed to concede this point, but argued that such merging of phosphorescent genes was still possible.
I still think it a hoax – getting an immatue form like a tadpole or a mouse fetus to glow under UV is still light years away from a uniformly glowing adult bunny.
Sorry – Here’s the link:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=39178
Why not? Dead tissue can also contain this protein. Keep in mind, it is glowing under UV. Heck, your fingernails glow under UV, just in a different color.
Granted New Scientist is a science populariser, but I think they check their stories a bit more carefully then that.
http://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/book/upd/millupd/gene/genes202.htm
Look familiar? Keep in mind that the even brighter glow in the rabbit was probably due to the researchers doubling output (mentioned in the New Scientist article).
http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns999916
Kyberneticist:
Thanks for the links (both times). I acknowledged the mjice, though, if you’ll notice. Baby mice and tadpoles flowing don’t necessarily translate into glowing adults, especially not uniformly glowing adults. Chicks injected with dye tend to grow out of it. My own experience with trying to introduce luminescent material into uniform and non-living crystals tells m that the luminescent material often collects in knots and deposits, rather than being unformly distru\ibuted. How much more unlikely is the heavily differentiated tisue of an adult mammal to be uniformly illuminated? My gut feeling is against this – and look at some of the eplies in the other thread on this issue.
I didn’t know this was in New Scientist, who I generally respect. But I wouldn’t be surprised if The Boston Globe got “taken”. It’s possible for New Scientist to be, as well.As for them always checking things out – I speak from experience in saying that they do NOT always do so. They quoted my own paper once (heck, it was the cover article!) and they never contacted either me or my co-workers.
I spent a year, in art school, photographing animals under a variety of lighting conditions (long story, but the series won some awards 
). Since then, I’ve done a buttload of PhotoShop work, professionally.
I’ve looked at a lot of the photos of the glowing bunnies and it is my unequivocal opinion that they are a hoax.
In none of the photos does the light seem to be generated by the animal: there are shadows in every single photo that indicate a very specific external light source, and no indication whatsoever that this external light source is in any way augmented by an internal light source. Also, in every single case, exactly the same effect could have been achieved in about 4 minutes in PhotoShop, by adjusting color levels and light/contrast levels. The “glowing” eyes, of course, are the same glowing eyes in your wedding photos, and would almost surely be the same red, not green. In any case, the glowing eyes are a reflection of an external light source and would not be present at all if the animal were producing its own light.
But just because it seems some news source got lazy and created a mock-up when they couldn’t get an actual photo of the bunny in question, does that make the story itself a hoax?
I agree, you’re probably right - the eyes are key. The eyes in the mouse pups are dark.
I haven’t seen the other new story, but New Scientist does not say that the picture is a picture of the rabbit in question, or even where they got it from.
On the “artist”'s website, there is a picture of a glowing green dog.
However, such a transgenic animal has yet to be created by him (or anyone else). I would suspect, as you said, photoshop.
That does not mean the bunny isn’t real, however.
Kyberneticist:
Please re-read my posts. The unreality of the bunny photo is not my only reason for disbelief.
By the way, I note that THE SAME PHOTO is used in the Boston Globe story, on the network news, and even on Cak’s own site. Is everyone lazy?
If you were promoting a show based on this, wouldn’t you make damn sure they used YOUR picture of YOUR creation?
And why is it that the bunny isn’t available for inspection by anyone else?
Sure smells like a hoax to me!
According to new scientist, the institute is refusing to hand it over.
BTW, here is another picture sans glowing eyes.
http://www.noemalab.com/sections/ideas/i_images/alba.jpg
Also, did you read about some of his other projects off the website? Seems like he’s milking the GE controversy for all it is worth…
Just realised.
When acknowledging the photography issue, I was responding to lissener, not you.
This is an even more clumsily PhotoShopped picture. Note that the light source is very clearly coming from above and a little to the right of the camera (see the shadows). Just because someone was clever enough to PhotoShop the glow out of the eyes is not, of course, proof. Curves and crevices would be lighter, not darker, if the animal were glowing.
This is so clearly an extended piece of performance art. Kac is making a statement about the relationship of media to science, of science to art, of media consumers (you and me) to art and science, etc.
Glowing bunnies, indeed.
Besides, if there were glowing bunnies (my new band name) being used as part of an art project, do you really think there would be such a need to produce fake photos of them? The fake photos are the crux of a major point of this piece of performance art about images of science in the media.
I had a performance art professer in school who did pieces that seem related, though without the science connection: Once, on a night when Laurie Anderson was in town performing (this was in the days when Laurie Anderson was just becoming a national figure and kind of a poster child for performance art), Nancy (my professor) cut and dyed her hair like Anderson’s, rented a stretch limo, and pulled up in front of a series of art galleries on a Friday night (gallery night). The limo parked in front of each for a few minutes, with Nancy sitting in back, and the darkened window lowered just enough to show the top of her trademark haircut.
The next day dozens of people claimed to have met Laurie Anderson on her gallery tour. All kinds of stories circulated about Anderson visiting the galleries, and everyone had a personal story to tell.
The relationship between the two pieces is a bit abstract, but perhaps you see my point.
Kac has an art project he has been publicising.
He got the INRA to help him out in some fashion (since it was work they were doing anyway).
They don’t give him the bunny.
He tries to keep up appearances with the faked (conceded your point there) photos and a regular albino bunny while trying to get their rabbit.
I checked the INRA website, but it hasn’t been updated since July, it seems, so it’s hard to get any statement from them, and I’m not about to pay for transatlantic phone calls.
lissener wrote:
Maybe the bunny’s being illuminated both with a visible light source and with a UV source for fluorescence. Remember, a fluorescent object doesn’t actually glow, it just reflects some of the incident light at a different (usually lower) frequency than it started out as. It’s a phosphorescent object that glows. I would expect a fluorescent object to be darker along the folds and creases, because there’d be less incident UV there.
Perhaps, but doesn’t anything white glow under blacklights?
In any case, the bunny in the picture on the “official” site has green light reflected from its eyes. If the light used to fluoresce the thing is UV, there’d be no visible light reflecting from the eyes, right? If there were visible light reflecting from the eyes, it would be red, right?
No. The reason most white things seem to glow under Long and Shortwave Ultra Violet light is that most white things are bleached and bleach is fluorescent
Again, nope. As a longtime collector of Fluorescent minerals, every UV light I’ve ever seen projects some light in the visible spectrum (usually purple). And as for the uniform glow mentioned in other posts, that’s what fluorescent objects look like when they’re photographed.
To give an example, look at the Manganoan Calcite in this picture (top row, second from the left)
http://members.home.net/jtozour/Page20Franklin98.html
It’s red, but it has the same characteristic glow that the glowbunny does.
I’m not completely convinced that the glowbunny’s real, but I don’t think the picture is a fake as you think it is.
Fenris